Allowed

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Nov 2018A482/34820/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court quashed criminal proceedings for matrimonial offences. The dispute was settled amicably by the parties, and the victim was willing to withdraw the prosecution, rendering the proceedings fruitless.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings under Case Crime No. 2037 of 2013 and sheet No. 25 of 2014 were quashed.

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 55

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34820 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Jarif Ahmad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Syed Mohd. Khalid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri S.M.Khalid, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri A.K.Srivastava,learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and Sri Nikhil Chaturvedi, learned AGA for the State.

¶6

By means of the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have prayed for quashing the entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 2037 of 2013(Vilkis Vs. Jarif Ahmad &Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. & Sec.6 D.P.Act, police station Faridpur, District Bareilly as well as -sheet No. 25 of 2014 dated 29.1.2014 submitted in the aforesaid case.

¶7

It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant No.1 is husband and applicnat nos. 2 & 3 are mother-in-law and father-in-law of opposite party no.2 and they have entered into a compromise and amicably settled their dispute, a photocopy of the said settlement has been annexed as annexure-7 to the present application.

¶8

Sri A.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has admitted the fact of the compromise.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Manoj Sharma Vs. State, (2008)16 SCC1, B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana & others, (2003) 4 SCC 675 and Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, (2012)10 SCC 303 and has submitted that the applicants and opp. party No.2 have compromised the dispute and as such opp. party No.2 does not want to press the present case against the applicants. The opp. party No. 2 moved application under section 257 Cr.P.C. as well as compromise deed before the C.J.M., Varanasi and she is ready to withdraw the prosecution of the applicants and in view of the compromise no fruitful purpose would be served if the prosecution is allowed to go on.

¶10

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that parties have entered in to compromise and have settled their dispute amicably.

¶11

In this regard the view taken by the Apex court in the case of B.S. Joshi (supra) and Gian Singh versus State Of Punjab (supra) which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant finds force that this court in exercise of its inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C. can quash the proceeding as the dispute being matrimonial in nature and have been amicably settled between the applicants and opposite party no.2.

¶12

Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offence the proceeding of the aforesaid case is hereby quashed.

¶13

The present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands allowed.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.11.2018 IA

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarif Ahmad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asrar Ahmad and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Abhishek Agrawal and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Samsuddin and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Kaushilya Vs State of U.P. and another

Shivangi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr and 3 Others Vs State of Up and Another